In as much as I have clarified how my role works, it is in exactly the same manner that you have clarified. My calling yours a lie was out of line, I will admit. But as I stated, the end result is the same in that the original parameters of the agreement cannot be met, therefore it is void.
This is an assumption, pie hasn't answered that this is the case. It is complete semantics that is being used to assume that your role won't amplify mine.
No it isn't. It is literally designed around roleblockers, drivers, redirectors, and protective roles.
Those are are mechanics that influence how a role works. Your role influences mechanics, therefore logically it should influence the mechanics with mine as well. Pie making my role completely useless is one thing, but making it weak and balanced by another role (yours) makes much more sense.
In the original agreement you stipulated that the only way to stop your role was through roleblocking. Is that or is that not the case currently? If it is not the case, then the original agrement is voided.
Me targeting mafia and a kill not going through doesn't negatively effect the consequences unless you are going back to your original claim that I would forfeit my role just to make you look bad because elm is my scum buddy. In the chance the kill failed, it would paint elminster as scum and mean he is the lynch, which you say you want. Nothing has changed what the percieved benefit to you is.
I'm less interested in preventing him from quitting than mitigating the end result of him quitting. I consider his exit from the game to be a nigh certainty and as I stated earlier on, him being removed from the game earlier is better than latter, regardless of his affiliation.
He has proven to actively try and scum hunt here. You voted him initially because you said he wouldn't. That you are unwilling to budge here calls your motive into question of wanting him lynched, or actually wanting him to help progress the game. Which he is doing. So it's either personal, a waste of a vote, or you are trying for a mislynch.
You aren't just punishing mikal here, you are punishing the entire team by not even trying to consider his affiliation. Also if anything you are doing mikal a favor with your "punishment" he doesn't like playing here.
Then he should be on board with it. I win. He wins. We all win by not having a player that doesn't want to be here. Win-win-win.
The win win was following through with my plan which would have killed him and got you what you wanted and prevent him from throwing the game. The whole purpose of the deal was to prove to you that mikal was willing to play ball if you gave him the chance. You still aren't doing that in the face of him playing seriously.
A person who acts like elminster, you mean a person who is trying to play a normal game and adding pressure to inactives and questioning other players? He is doing more for the town right now than you are.
By sheeping you? I'm sure it's in your interest to spin sheeping you as being beneficial to town. But I don't think that bears objective scrutiny.
Both of us have mentioned sheeping each other, in so far as we both think the other is town. In actuality, we are bouncing ideas off each other and getting feedback. A miniture town block, sure but a far cry from the 0-effort sheeping your are implying.
And nothing has changed if your rules functions the way you said it did in post 103.
Nothing changed period, unless you are operating under the idea that I am scum trying to use the lack of a kill on mikal against you which I already said wouldn't be the case, because it would instead make elminster look scummy.
The only drawback that can happen is if you are roleblocked, I am night killed, and Mikal is the scum who isn't carrying the night kill. In which case my role also operates as an investigative one and we would know for a fact that mikal is scum and end up lynchinh him anyway.
Since you just contemplated how this plan might fail, does that make you scum now, since it apparently makes me scum?
If the plan was indeed to get you mislynched, which I have said multiple times now only implicates mikal upon failing. The compromise was never made to prove me or you was town or scum, it was made to get use of day phase 1. You are the one who made it about proving one or the other as scum.
There is nothing about my role that suggests it was put in to count yours.
Except for the existence of the role itself.
Even permitting the free roleblock, I agree that my role should by pass it and allow the ability to work, but Pie has ruled that is not the case.
Where?
In our PM.
Pie would only answer qeustions about how a roleblocker works to other scum members... This seems literal proof you are scum.
